There’s a guy in every man, but not a man in every guy.
The pro-choice position seems predicated on the idea that the political right of a woman to choose is superior to the biological right of someone to survive. In order to uphold this perspective, and to give adherents supreme authority over their bodies, pro-choice contends that no one can prove when life begins, thus challenging us to establish criteria for “life.” Because it is a debate with no resolution pro-choice offers an intellectual umbrella beneath which women can invoke the right to terminate a pregnancy at any point. The benefit of the doubt is given to the host female, not to the unborn child.
To preserve the right to choose, the female, and the males who support them, must be allowed to view the unborn child through the lens of legalism and a clinical vocabulary. Through objectification, the individual is absolved from bestowing upon the foetus the status and rights of an entity. If it were to be declared a being as distinct as the mother, abortion would perforce be outlawed.
The demand by pro-choice for what it calls reproductive rights has a militant flavour. It claims that the female alone has the right to determine the course of conception because the outcome resides within her body. This thesis did not arise in a vacuum; it emerged from the rebellion of feminist thinking against a social system that was in many ways oppressive. Without the power to control reproduction, pro-choice believes that women would forever be at the mercy of that system. Because of this, the focus for pro-choice is not a question of life – it is one of personal power.
Coupled with Feminism is post-modern thought, a form of relativism on steroids. This view of existence proposes that there are no absolute truths, and therefore one person’s world view is as good as another’s. The pro-choice platform is upheld by this belief and is plainly heard when advocates say things like: “I believe that conception creates a living child but I cannot hold others to this view.” A parallel statement would be: “I believe it is wrong for adults to have sex with children; however, if other cultures find it acceptable, who am I to say they’re wrong?” Relativism allows adherents of pro-choice to believe that truth is a matter of opinion, and gives permission to emphasize personal choice over life.
In defence of pro-choice, it must be said that the adherent is not necessarily against the possibility that conception has created a life, it simply emphasizes a philosophy which allows women to abort whether they think life begins at conception or not. Each person decides for herself; in this way, she retains control over her own life.
A terrible fear impels pro-choice, and therein lies the sadness. It is a position like that of a woman who has successfully stormed the citadel and vows, “Never again!” She has seized control over reproduction, and drawing a line in the sand proclaims that the choice to birth her child is solely hers. She alone claims the right to choose whether she carries a living being or a piece of tissue to be discarded.
Recently, at one of those lunchtime conversations, my colleagues and I talked about circumcision and its place in a boy’s life. It started with comments about female circumcision in Muslim countries, and how obviously cruel and barbaric that practice is. Mutilation, we called it, and agreed that it benefited the distorted desires of men for control over women who at the time of the procedure are pre-pubescent girls. However, I found the conversation intriguing when it flowed into discussion about male circumcision. Although not as brutal as the female version, the procedure for boys is as fraught with myths and rationalizations as the female one.
One of our group was a woman who was expecting a baby. She and her husband had been struggling about whether to have their child circumcised if he were born male. She seemed ambivalent about the matter. So, over tuna-fish sandwiches and microwaved spaghetti we casually discussed the issue.
“But it’s supposed to be healthier for men,” she said. “It reduces the likelihood of them getting a sexually transmitted infection. Or giving it to their mates.”
“There’s absolutely no medical reason,” I replied, “for circumcision. Historically, only Jews have undergone the procedure – and only for religious reasons. Besides, there’s no evidence that removal prevents the transmission of any kind of sexually transmitted infection.”
One of the physicians at our table jumped in. He said, “Well, that’s not exactly true. There’s been some evidence that women are less likely to contract Human Papiloma Virus if their partners are circumcised. But the degree to which transmission is reduced is so small that it doesn’t warrant circumcision.
I appreciated the doctor’s response. If the likelihood of transmission is so small, and is specific to this kind of infection, of what use is it to recommend wholesale removal of the prepuce. I mean…we were born with it! There must be some reason in the evolutionary process that warranted its invention. Ear lobes seem just as redundant – why not cut them off too?
My pregnant colleague mused for a moment and asked, “But shouldn’t a boy be like his father?”
I’d heard this reasoning before, and had been astounded each time. So I facetiously replied, “Do you think he’ll suffer some kind of emotional trauma if he’s different from dad?”
She understood that my question was rhetorical and added, “But what if he asks his father why he’s different?”
“Well then, his father will simply tell him the reason. And take this perfect opportunity to talk about male sexuality in an age appropriate way. Besides…how often is your son going to be looking at his father’s penis?”
The glans is soft and vulnerable – especially when it sits atop an erect penis. It seems to me that its jacket was designed for protection and comfort. Wikipedia has said that the foreskin maintains the mucosa in a moist environment. In males wo have been circumcised, but have not undergone restoration, the glans is permanently exposed and dry [This translates as ‘not good.’]. contrary to widely held belief, the glans of the circumcised penis does not develop a thicker layer [The glans doesn’t protect itself by adapting to the change in its environment. This translates as ‘not good.’]…Many males who have restored their foreskin observe increased [sexual] sensitivity, which is often attributed to the increase in moistness of the covered glans [This translates as ‘good.’]…
My colleague said, “I knew a woman who told me she had sex with a man who had a foreskin, and that it really turned her off.” Reflecting her friend’s experience she grimaced.
“Does this mean,” I asked, “that we should operate at birth on our male children because fifteen or twenty years later they might find a female who is turned off by the vest at the top of their penis?”
What turns a woman on or off about a man’s body is individual. Removing our boys’ foreskins may make them more desireable to certain women but less so to others. My sense is that most women don’t give a hoot about the circumstances of our foreskin. Besides, if the sexual desirability of a man depends on whether he is circumcised or not, then his prospective life-long partner is probably not the one for him.
Men were designed with foreskins in mind. When we were being created, some engineer must have realized we were bald down there and decided it would be a good idea to give us a hat, ostensibly for comfort and protection. That slip of skin keeps us in good working order. Remove it at your own risk.
Many women nowadays
think, say and do
what men should never have.
A sexy woman is one who leaves much to the imagination. And in so doing, leaves much to be desired.
A sexy woman is someone who knows that beauty moves from the inside, out. She spends time exercising, cleaning and feeding it.
A sexy woman is someone who knows that clothing, jewellery and hair are designed to draw the eye to her inner beauty. It is the main attraction.
A sexy woman knows that her body is also an accesory to the main feature.
A sexy woman has natural intelligence that she submerges for no one. She knows who she is and treasures it.
A sexy woman is obvious – you can tell by the way she delights in the succulent experience of a juicy peach while sex is the furthest thing from her mind.
A sexy woman is someone who knows that sex is not about body parts. It is ironically about being pure of heart.
A sexy woman keeps healthy: body, mind and spirit. She is wholesome. She does not cuss.
A sexy woman is someone who will not agree to an expensive supper on the first date. She wants to get to know you first, at an afternoon coffee and a walk in the park.
A sexy woman can intuitively recognize a sexy man. And she will not commit herself until she knows he’s the one.
Reality…accept no substitute.
Passive Aggression: a dog who, while he has his paws on your shoulders and is licking your face, is peeing on your pants.
Know anyone like this?